Punch “Why are Christians so…” into Google’s search bar and its “autocomplete” feature will reveal some interesting results. Do the same for Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and other religions and what you see may surprise you.

For Christians, the question is why are they so annoying, mean, hypocritical or weird. For Muslims, Google searchers wonder why they are so barbaric, aggressive, sensitive and religious. The list could go on. According to Google, “autocomplete predicts and displays queries to choose from. The search queries that you see as part of autocomplete are a reflection of the search activity of all web users and the content of web pages indexed by Google.” Thus, many have assumed that how Google’s autocomplete finishes the, “Why are (insert religious groups here) so…” reflects the general populous’ view of other religions.

Over the last several months, an image seemingly compiled by John Saddington of ChurchLeaders made the rounds on various blog-sites written by individuals from myriad perspectives. Christians interpreted the image as a sad testament to their image and witness in the world. Pastors and church leaders such as Frank Viola at Patheos warned that “the world is watching” and lamented that images such as this, “shows some of the serious stereotypes that we Christians are up against.” Boris Veldhuijzen van Zanten, founder of The Next Web, shared the image on his site and said, “this example of how biased people are when it comes to different religions is pretty depressing. Until you come to the part about buddhists of course.” Why is that? Because according to the image, people wonder why Buddhists are so “happy” and apparently that’s all they query.

According to this logic, and the above analysis, “autocomplete” reveals how John Q. Public thinks about various faiths and non-faiths. But is it really that simple?

A few cautions before you, or anyone else, uses Google’s autocomplete (or Bing’s for that matter) as a tool for analysis of public attitudes towards religion and non-religion in the U.S. and elsewhere.

First, autocomplete results change. This image seems to have first appeared in October 2010, soon after Google’s autocomplete feature launched. If you were to enter the same inquiries into the Google search bar today the results would be different, perhaps markedly so. Take for example the search regarding Jews. In the image it shows that people wonder why Jews are so cheap, successful, smart and rich. Today, in my Google search bar, the sentence is completed by the words: smart, liberal, rude, rich. Apparently, opinions of Jews, or at least the questions people are asking about them on Google, changed slightly.

Besides, the image is incomplete. If the image is to be taken at face value Buddhists are the happiest people on earth. But autocomplete has more of a story to tell. While many still wonder why Buddhists are happy and peaceful, others ask why they are selfish and annoying. This reveals that there is always more to the story, which leads me to the last point.

Third, this type of image analysis and its subsequent conclusions are an example of common sampling biases. Undercoverage or nonresponse bias can easily skew accurate results and analysis. Those who own computers, internet users, Google users and those with curiosity enough to search for answers on other religions are the only ones being sampled in Google’s autocomplete algorithm. Consequently, the results are not so easily representative of the general populous as some blogs might lead you to believe.

Finally, the image itself can skew the results as the title for the image, and its concomitant blog posts, includes words such as “why are Christians/Muslims/Buddhists so” and the like. These are used in Google analytics and impact the autocomplete results. This blog will further alter the findings of autocomplete. Moreover, books like Why Are You Atheists So Angry? alter the results and make the query “why are atheists so angry” the top outcome on the autocomplete list. Followed closely by “mean,” “rude” and “stupid” the top query may be illuminating, or it could be misleading given that a popular book title can easily distort the findings.

With all this said, there is some overlap from the “autocomplete analysis” and verifiable survey research. Take for example the case of Muslims. According to Google autocomplete, the majority of people view them as barbaric, violent, sensitive and religious. Similarly, Pew Research discovered that a sizable minority, and sometimes a majority, of people still believe Muslims are violent, or that Islam leads to violent action. Still, the other half of the story is not told, that many believe Islam is not an inherently violent religion or that it encourages violence and barbarism more than other religions.

The basic issue with “autocomplete analysis” of attitudes towards other religions is one of assumptions. Those commenting on, and drawing conclusions from, these autocomplete lists assume that the results are representative and reliable. They are not necessarily so. Although the autocomplete lists may uncover some truths about attitudes and opinions they are not authoritative or prototypical.

Assumption remains the problem even if the autocomplete verdicts are accurate. Those who are populating Google’s analytics with the searches that lead to worrying, or even positive, conclusions about Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, atheists and more are starting their quest with an assumption. They are, in a big way, leading the search engine, as it were, and confirming their own biases. If a person enters in the words, “Why are Muslims so violent” they will soon find resources that “confirm” the inherent bias in the question – that Muslims are indeed violent. Again, assumption is the issue.

Google can be a great tool for understanding our world and discovering new things. Yet, it is not a panacea for ignorance, nor is it a reliable source for academic or statistical research and interpretation. The best thing Google can do is lead to good resources and point people in the right direction. Consequently, what this episode reveals about the public is more concerning than any negative attitude – it is that we are too quick to rely on dubious internet based tools and not engage in honest, challenging, research on other religions. In the end, this leads to more religious illiteracy.